Note: This
instruction may be used at the time the parol evidence is introduced
during the trial, as well as at the conclusion of the trial. Use if
there is a fully integrated contract, but terms are ambiguous and
parol evidence can assist in interpreting those terms without
varying or contradicting those terms.

The parties intended that
<describe contract> be the complete contract. Therefore, you
may consider the following evidence <insert evidence of earlier
understandings> only for the purpose of determining the intent
of the parties as to the meaning of <insert ambiguous terms>.
I have found that the meaning of <insert ambiguous terms> is
not clear. You may not consider that evidence of earlier oral or
written understandings for the purpose of varying or contradicting
the terms of that contract.

Before using this
instruction, first determine whether there is a complete integrated
agreement such that the parol evidence rule applies. Then determine
whether the contract language is ambiguous and if the proposed
evidence will not vary or contradict the terms of the contract. If
so, then the instruction may be given. See Alstom Power, Inc. v.
Blacke-Durr, Inc., 269 Conn. 599, 609-10 (2004); HLO Land
Ownership Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Hartford, 248 Conn.
350, 360 (1999).

Even if the court
determines that the parol evidence rule applies, parol evidence may
be used to determine the meaning of terms to a contract as long as
it does not vary or contradict those terms. Ruscito v. F-Dyne
Electronics Co., 177 Conn. 149, 160 (1979); Foley v.
Hungtington Co., 42 Conn. App. 712, 734 (1996), cert. denied,
239 Conn. 931 (1996).